Elbow contact above the shoulders.

[jeremy341a]

After all the discussion of this I finally had it happen in my game last night in my 33th game of the season. VG and H1 gets a rebound in heavy traffic in the lane. She is immediately pressured by 3 girls from the V team. Her response it to rapidly twist at the waist with her elbows extended. She wasn't pivoting her feet but her elbows were not moving faster than her torso. She made contact with a V player to the top of the shoulder, neck and jaw area. I go intentional and here it from the crowd but not one peep from the player, her teammates, or Coach.

[JRutledge]

Were you going with the intentional foul because that is what you were instructed to do or did you feel that was your only option?

Just wondering why you did not go with a PC foul instead? Just tying to understand the thinking that is all.

Peace

[Toren]

From what you describe, I have a player control foul. I go intentional if the elbows are not stationary or they become excessive.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

. . . She made contact with a V player to the top of the shoulder, neck and jaw area. I go intentional . . .

Help me understand my confusion with the responses that it could have been a common foul. NFHS (12-13 POE) says: "2. Contact above the shoulders..., b. Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties... 1) An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul."

Did I miss or am I missing something in the original sitch or in my take on the POE?

Or am I still showing my lack of understanding on all that "stationary elbows when they are moving" tripe?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Or am I still showing my lack of understanding on all that "stationary elbows when they are moving" tripe?

This.

And, FWIW, I would have had it as IP as well, based on the description.

[Toren]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

She wasn't pivoting her feet but her elbows were not moving faster than her torso.

This is why I interpreted as a player control and not intentional.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by Toren

This is why I interpreted as a player control and not intentional.

The elbow was moving and there was contact above the shoulders, how can you have a player control foul? The rule is not if the elbow is not excessively swinging, it may be a PC foul.

If there is a moving elbow above the shoulders it shall be at least an IF.

-Josh

[OKREF]

Here we go again

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Here we go again

1+

-Josh

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Here we go again.

Strictly by the NFHS point of emphasis, intentional foul. Otherwise, when in Rome ...

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jdmara

The elbow was moving and there was contact above the shoulders, how can you have a player control foul? The rule is not if the elbow is not excessively swinging, it may be a PC foul.

If there is a moving elbow above the shoulders it shall be at least an IF.

-Josh

In some areas that's not how it is interpreted. See the previous threads.

Someone link to it and then close this, please.

[jeremy341a]

My opinion obviously was this was an intentional foul. We were told at are rules meeting that even if just pivioting if the elbow strikes above the shoulder it is to be ruled an intentional. I understand other states have been told to interpert differently and I am fine with that. However I feel that it should be intentional even before this meeting. In my mind the elbows are moving. Besides unless the defense leans into it when the offense pivots they are leaving their space. My elbows stick out approximately one foot when chinning the ball. When I turn my waist 90 degrees now my elbows stick out one foot in front of me. If the defense was already in this space then the foul must be on the offense and since the elbow is moving (according to our area) then the foul must be intentional.

Cliff Notes, yes I thought it was my only choice however I agree that it should be my only choice with how the rules are written.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Strictly by the NFHS point of emphasis, intentional foul. Otherwise, when in Rome ...

I agree with this and our area interpertor has told us when pivoting the elbows are in motion. If other rule different I am fine with that as long as their is consistency in their area.

[OKREF]

If we enforced all rules verbatim from the book, we would have 3 second call on every play. A hand check on almost every play.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Toren

This is why I interpreted as a player control and not intentional.

That's (stationary equals moving no faster than the torso) how we were instructed by CHSAA at the master clinic.